Court grants Trudeau government extension to fix ‘lost Canadians’ citizenship rules — with a catch (3 slightly different reports)

Appears that Justice Akbarali is being activist, not only in her interpretation citizenship rights but also with respect to setting an unreasonably short timeline for compliance.

She certainly would know that developing, passing and implementing legislation takes longer than six months and a month extension, over the summer months when Parliament sitting, is meaningless. Given the possibly large numbers involved and the policy and operational implications (judges tend to underestimate the latter), thorough review will be needed.

The numbers we have are provided that the advocates indicate a likely upper limit of 1.5 million, not negligible in terms of impacts. It is striking that IRCC has not yet provided its estimates of the number of persons affected, including those of women first-generation born abroad of child bearing age (estimates of the total number of expatriates are imprecise with StatsCan settling on 4 million).

Of course, like so many of these initiatives, there is an assumption than many, if not most, “lost Canadians” want to be “found.” Whenever the government makes a change to address “lost Canadians” or expand voting rights to expatriates, the actual numbers are relatively small as seen through citizenship proofs and expatriate voting rights.

More to come over coming months:

Starting with The Star:

The federal government has been given a last-minute reprieve to roll out a new law to restore the citizenship rights of “lost Canadians” born outside Canada.

That’s despite its failure to have a proper plan in place to address urgent cases affected by the delay.

Six months ago, Ottawa was ordered by an Ontario court to repeal what’s known as the “second-generation cut-off” rule and amend the current Citizenship Act by June 20, after a judge ruled it’s unconstitutional for Canada to deny automatic citizenship to children born abroad because their parents also happened to be born overseas.

On Wednesday, at the eleventh hour, the government pleaded for a six-month extension of the deadline, arguing that it had already introduced an amendment bill, C-71, in May to confer citizenship to those affected by the current law and address the legislative gaps to ensure others won’t fall through the cracks in the future.

Officials contended that the legislative process takes time and it is a “complex undertaking” that would involve preparing training materials for immigration staff, forms, website pages and co-ordination, among other things.

However, Judge Jasmine Akbarali only agreed to grant the government seven weeks’ relief, until she can reassess the progress made to create an interim plan to handle urgent citizenship requests by lost Canadians and to push for the passage of Bill C-71 by Dec. 19.

In reaching her decision, the judge said she had to balance the government’s need to properly fix the problems and the hardship affected Canadians will continue to suffer as a result of the delay.

“While it has been working on the legislation, the respondent has not proceeded with any sense of urgency to rectify the unconstitutional aspects of the legislation,” Akbarali in her decision released Wednesday evening. 

“It does not propose an effective mechanism to address the hardship that a further six-month suspension will cause to people whose constitutional rights are being violated day after day.”

An estimated 170,000 women in the first generation born abroad, who are in the age range at which people often choose to start families, are still being affected by the current law when making those important life decisions, the judge noted.

In chiding the government for its tardiness, the court referred to a couple of other bills that officials successfully pushed through recently, including Bill C-62, an Act respecting medical assistance in dying, which went from first reading to royal assent within the month of February.

“There is no explanation as to why this bill is languishing since May 23, 2024, when the government was aware of the date on which the suspended declaration of invalidity was set to expire,” said Akbarali.

“The unconstitutional law remains on the books, and continues to interfere with the Charter rights of Canadians to make important decisions about where to live, and where and when to have children, all of which have implications for the financial, physical and emotional health of the people involved.”

She said it’s insufficient for the government to grant citizenship to lost Canadians at the immigration minister’s discretion, as proposed, during the interim before the amended bill is enacted, supposedly by Dec. 19, because that process is “ineffective, and also poorly communicated.”

Toronto lawyer Sujit Choudhry, who represented the six lost Canadian families in the constitutional challenge, said his clients are pleased with the court decision, which also included granting three of the families the sought-after citizenship and $35,064.47 in partial indemnity costs.

“They now have the full benefit of the court’s judgment,” Choudhry said in an interview. “They are not second-class citizens anymore. It was very important for them that there be accountability. They led this fight not just for themselves, but for everyone like them.”

The parties are to reconvene on Aug. 1 to hear the government’s updates on its interim plan to deal with pending citizenship applications of lost Canadians and steps to pass Bill C-71 by the proposed extended deadline. The court will then make a final decision on the full extension to Dec. 19.

The “second generation” cut-off against Canadians born abroad was first introduced by the then Conservative government, which also removed the so-called “connection test” for these descendants to reclaim citizenship based on their ties to Canada. Despite several amendments to the act, there remain many lost Canadians.

Source: Court grants Trudeau government extension to fix ‘lost Canadians’ citizenship rules — with a catch

CBC:

So-called “lost Canadians” will have to wait longer to obtain their right to citizenship now that a court has granted the federal government more time to fix legislation it ruled was unconstitutional.

The courts initially gave the federal government until today to replace legislation that prevents Canadians born abroad from passing on their citizenship to children also born abroad.

In May, the Liberals introduced Bill C-71, which introduced sweeping changes to Canada’s citizenship laws. The government says the legislation addresses the concerns of the court.

But the Liberals did not get the bill through the House of Commons before it rose for the summer on Wednesday. MPs will not return to the Commons until mid-September.

In handing down the extension to Aug. 9 on Wednesday, Ontario Superior Court Justice Jasmine Akbarali slammed the pace of the legislation’s passage through the House. She noted that other pieces of government legislation moved swiftly to the Senate, while a citizenship bill responding to the violation of a legal right still remains in its early stages.

“I am troubled by the fact that, after taking over five months to introduce Bill C-71, in the almost-month that has passed since then, the bill has not reached second reading,” Akbarali said.

“There is no explanation as to why this bill has been languishing since May 23, 2024, when the government was aware of the date on which the suspended declaration of invalidity was set to expire.”

In the meantime, Akbarali added, Canadians’ rights are being violated.

“The unconstitutional law remains on the books and continues to interfere with the Charter rights of Canadians to make important decisions about where to live, and where and when to have children, all of which have implications for the financial, physical and emotional health of the people involved,” the justice wrote.

Akbarali said these are not “theoretical or minor constitutional violations” but ones that could lead to “children being stateless.”

“They can lead to women having to make choices between their financial health and independence on one hand, and their physical health on the other. They can separate families,” Akbarali said in her decision.

“They can force children to stay in places that are unsafe for them. They can interfere with some of the deepest and most profound connections that human beings both enjoy and need.”

In a previous ruling, Akbarali said the current law forces women in their reproductive years to choose between travel, study and career opportunities abroad, and passing citizenship on to their children.

Thousands of so-called “Lost Canadians” have lost their citizenship, and in some cases been deported, due to a complicated section of the Citizenship Act. Now, the federal government is trying to pass new legislation to prevent people from falling through the cracks.

In December, Ontario’s Superior Court struck down Canada’s old citizenship law, Bill C-37, which prevented parents born outside Canada from passing on their citizenship to children also born abroad. The court ruled that it violated their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It gave the government six months to enact Charter-compliant legislation.

The Liberal government said in May its legislation to respond to the judgment, Bill C-71, would fix those problems and automatically confer citizenship rights on children born since 2009 once enacted.

In granting the extension, Justice Akbarali said the government would only have until Aug. 1 to present arguments on why she should consider another extension until Dec. 19. The judge ordered the government to file a plan to address the hardship experienced by parents under the existing law during the extended period and “ideally” file a report on the steps required to get the bill passed before mid-December.

Sujit Choudhry, the lawyer who fought the constitutional case for the families, called for these conditions. Choudhry estimates that the current law violates the rights of at least 1.48 million Canadians at home and living abroad.

Source: Court grants government another extension to fix unconstitutional citizenship law

CTV:

An unknown number of young people born abroad to Canadian parents could wait until at least December to be eligible for citizenship.

Last year, the Ontario Superior Court ordered Ottawa to reverse restrictions imposed by the previous Conservative government in 2009, which limited citizenship by descent to children born in Canada if their Canadian parents were born outside the country.

The court declared the 2009 change unconstitutional for creating two classes of citizens and gave Ottawa until June 19 to implement a solution. On Wednesday, the court granted the government’s request to extend that deadline to Aug. 9.

In a statement to CTVNews.ca, an Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) spokesperson explained there were conditions attached to the new Aug. 9 deadline.

“The Judge also ordered a hearing on August 1, 2024 to determine if an extension to December 2024 would be appropriate,” the IRCC spokesperson told CTVNews.ca. “She has asked to be presented prior to the hearing with a report explaining the progress made on Bill C-71 since May 23, 2024 ‘and ideally, intended next steps to pass the bill by December 19, 2024.'”

Bill C-71(opens in a new tab), An Act to Amend the Citizenship Act, was introduced in late May(opens in a new tab). If passed, citizenship would automatically be granted to anyone affected by the 2009 change. Going forward, Canadian citizens who were born abroad will also have to spend at least three years in the country before a foreign birth or adoption to be able to pass on citizenship rights to their children.

“There’s no doubt that Canadian citizenship is highly valued and recognized around the world,” Immigration Minister Marc Miller previously said. “We want citizenship to be fair, accessible, with clear and transparent rules.”

With the House of Commons adjourning for the summer on Wednesday(opens in a new tab), the bill is expected to remain on hold until members of Parliament resume legislative business in mid-September, likely necessitating another court extension.

“Many individuals who considered themselves Canadian were excluded from citizenship simply due to their place of birth,” Toronto-based immigration consultant Al Parsai told CTVNews.ca. “By declaring it unconstitutional, the court recognized the adverse impact on Canadian families and their ties to their heritage.”

The government has no idea how many so-called “Lost Canadians” are impacted. All are aged 15 and younger.

NDP immigration critic Jenny Kwan helped draft the bill alongside the Liberals. She attempted to push it through by asking for unanimous consent from MPs, but Conservatives voted against it twice.

“I’ve talked to family members who’ve been separated from their loved ones because of this unjust law that Conservatives brought in 15 years ago,” the Vancouver East NDP MP said last month(opens in a new tab). “I’ve talked to family members where their children are deemed stateless, lost in the system, because of this unjust, punitive, unconstitutional law.”

If the federal government is not given another court extension before Bill C-71 passes, it may be up to the immigration minister himself to decide individual citizenship cases.

“If it doesn’t come through we’re sort of in no man’s land,” Miller said before Wednesday’s court extension. “Basically, it’s my discretion deciding who’s Canadian or not. Obviously, that shouldn’t be up to the discretion of a minister.”

If the bill does pass, anyone affected by the 2009 change would be able to apply online for a Canadian citizenship certificate(opens in a new tab). The government also has a digital tool that can help you find out if you are Canadian(opens in a new tab).

Parsai expects to see a surge in citizenship applications, which could strain government resources.

“The Ontario Superior Court’s ruling in 2023 was a pivotal moment, acknowledging the unfairness of the 2009 policy,” Parsai said. “This change will be immensely positive for Canadians and their families, restoring their sense of belonging and legal recognition.”

Source: Canada’s new citizenship rules for kids born abroad delayed

Chris Selley: Toronto’s Dundas debacle proves education matters, even in a pandemic

Valid points:

…On the latter point, especially with a world of information a mouse click away, I am very sympathetic. You can know history’s names and dates and understand nothing about it, for example, or you can draw a blank on the names and dates but have a very firm grasp of history’s overall arc and its relevance for today.

And on that point, this week, Ontario offered up a case study to show where crappy education, especially in history, can lead us. Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow’s executive committee, the last step before city council, approved plans to rename the city’s Yonge-Dundas Square — think Times Square but even more antiseptic and soulless — as Sankofa Square.

Sankofa is a Ghanaian term referring “to the act of reflecting on and reclaiming teachings from the past, enabling us to move forward together,” CBC reports. The rebranding is framed as a sort of recompense for the city having named it previously after Henry Dundas, an 18th-century abolitionist politician who, among other feats, managed to invalidate all slave contracts on Scottish soil.

But Dundas disagreed with other abolitionists on whether it was best as a practical, political matter to try to abolish slavery immediately or incrementally. And that was enough to get him cancelled in Toronto, just as Egerton Ryerson was cancelled before him on the spurious charge that he helped design an abusive residential-school system for Indigenous children.

Councillors exhibited sub-zero levels of Sankofa in debating the matter, it must be said. Coun. Chris Moisie accused one anti-renaming deputant of being a racist. Non-Black councillor Gord Perks complained that the opponents just don’t understand anti-Black racism.

Well nor does Toronto City Council, if it’s stripping an abolitionist’s name from a public square as an apology for slavery.

Education matters. It separates us from the apes and grounds us in a basic shared understanding of how the world works, and worked in the past, and it informs debate on how it should work in the future. By rights, the COVID nightmare should have produced a call to arms: Let’s get serious about education again. Some, however, seem prepared to use it to speed up a race to the bottom.

Source: Chris Selley: Toronto’s Dundas debacle proves education matters, even in a pandemic

Yakabuski: McGill’s pro-Palestinian encampment’s ‘revolutionary’ curriculum has no place on campus

Yep:

…Lest you get the impression that the McGill protesters are just peaceniks in keffiyehs, consider the “revolutionary” youth summer program that the McGill chapter of SPHR launched this week at the encampment. An Instagram post touting the program included a 1970 photo of Palestinian Liberation Organization fighters, most with their faces covered and two of whom are holding assault rifles.

“We pledge to educate the youth of Montreal and redefine McGill’s ‘elite’ instutional [sic] legacy by transformining [sic] its space into one of revolutionary education,” the post said. “The daily schedule will include physical activity, Arabic language instruction, cultural crafts, political discussions, historical and revolutionary lessons.”…

Source: McGill’s pro-Palestinian encampment’s ‘revolutionary’ curriculum has no place on campus

Trump proposes green cards for foreign grads of US colleges, departing from anti-immigrant rhetoric

Always hard to judge his thoughts as to the degree of seriousness in following through if elected. More likely that his harder line immigration views will prevail given the nature of organizations and possible senior appointments but essentially a version of PGWP:

Former President Donald Trump said in an interview posted Thursday he wants to give automatic green cards to foreign students who graduate from U.S. colleges, a sharp departure from the anti-immigrant rhetoriche typically uses on the campaign trail.

Trump was asked about plans for companies to be able to import the “best and brightest” in a podcast taped Wednesday with venture capitalists and tech investors called the “All-In.”

“What I want to do and what I will do is you graduate from a college, I think you should get automatically as part of your diploma a green card to be able to stay in this country. And that includes junior colleges too, anybody graduates from a college. You go there for two years or four years,” he said, vowing to address this concern on day one.

Immigration has been Trump’s signature issue during his 2024 bid to return to the White House. His suggestion that he would offer green cards — documents that confer a pathway to U.S. citizenship — to potentially hundreds of thousands of foreign graduates would represent a sweeping expansion of America’s immigration system that sharply diverges from his most common messages on foreigners.

Source: Trump proposes green cards for foreign grads of US colleges, departing from anti-immigrant rhetoric

Ibbitson: Canada may need to brace for influx of undocumented immigrants if Trump becomes president

Quite astounding that Ibbitson would essentially advocate an open door policy for the American undocumented that would likely seek coming to Canada. Such a wholesale approach, in the context of already excessive levels of permanent and temporary migration, would undermine further any pretence of a managed immigration system, not to mention the increased burden on healthcare, housing and infrastructure.

Since many of the undocumented are lower skilled, such an approach would further weaken Canada’s productivity.

In terms of the academics quoted, Macklin is correct regarding the practical difficulties of effectively expelling over 10 million people but may be discounting that a Trump 2 administration will be more ideological and is actively looking at how to effect such policy.

Somewhat puzzled by Lieu’s comment dismissing the importance of numbers on public confidence. While true that it may depend more on “proper supervision,” rapid growth in numbers becomes a proxy for lack of proper supervision, as Roxham Road and previous irregular arrivals attest, not to mention IRCC’s many issues and challenges in managing current flows.

In any case, Mr. Trump might welcome the departure of undocumented immigrants across the northern border and scrap the agreement himself.

In the event of a Trump victory, Canada should be ready to welcome as many new arrivals from the United States as possible, regardless of their immigration or citizenship status.

They would represent a silver lining to the very dark thundercloud of a second Trump presidency.

Source: Canada may need to brace for influx of undocumented immigrants if Trump becomes president

Paul: Confessions of an Anti-Protester

As someone who has flitted between being a joiner and not, more on the not side but others may disagree, I enjoyed this column:

…I’ve never been much of a tribalist or a joiner, and have no use for conformity of thought or dress. Unless it’s Halloween or a costume party, I don’t like playing dress-up. Nor do I want to be part of a group where people might think I accidentally left my pussy hat at home. When I see a bunch of white kids wearing kaffiyehs I can’t help wonder whatever happened to the whole anti-cultural appropriation thing.

When someone drones on about “solidarity,” all I hear is, “Get in line.” When there’s no room for dissent from the dissent, there’s no room for me.

Color me an anti-fan of performative politics, particularly if it means I’d be part of the show that features bigots posing as bleeding hearts.

Plus, all that earnestness! It brings out my ironic and impish side, inclined to correct typos on signage or foment some kind of peripheral debate. Every time someone at one of those encampments cried out “Free Palestine” I’d be tempted to yell “From Hamas!” I’d surely get kicked out of the group that wants to kick other people out. They don’t want troublemakers….

Source: Confessions of an Anti-Protester

After refusing for years, Trudeau government brands Iran’s Revolutionary Guards a terror organization

So typical, unfortunately, of this government. Maintaining an argument, which in this case had some validity, only to change far too late to have impact on public perceptions. Doubt many will believe that decision was only based on a “deliberative process” bereft of political considerations:

….Suggestions that listing the entirety of the IRGC could end up punishing former conscripts who had no choice but to serve was once considered a roadblock.

“It’s a complex situation, particularly in a country as diverse as ours when you have diaspora communities that come from all corners of the world,” said Justice Minister Arif Virani Wednesday, but he stressed only those who knowingly and willingly support the IRGC could be caught up. 

When the question came to LeBlanc of why now and what changed, he brushed off the suggestion it was political pressure.

“The decision to list an organization under Canada’s Criminal Code as a terrorist entity isn’t made because of comments on Twitter or question period,” he said, later adding it was the product of a “deliberative process based on very, very strong and compelling evidence.”

What evidence? He didn’t directly answer….

Source: After refusing for years, Trudeau government brands Iran’s Revolutionary Guards a terror organization

With dipping study permit approval rates for international students, Canada may not meet its reduced target

Classic case of how planned and needed changes/corrections can either under or over shoot planned targets:

Canada’s processing of new study permits has fallen by half since rules were changed to rein in the number of international students, and the decline is so steep that it may not even meet its reduced 2024 target, according to the latest immigration data.

The free fall is the result of a considerable drop in Indian students’ applications and the rising overall refusal rate for study permits, says an analysis of the first-quarter data from the Immigration Department.

“The Canadian international education landscape has evolved considerably over the past six months,” said the insight report released on Wednesday by ApplyBoard, an online marketplace for learning institutions and international students.

“The data is starting to illustrate the effects of these updated policies.”

Since January, Ottawa made a number of changes to slow the intake of international students, with the aim of reducing the new study permits issued by 28 per cent to 291,914 from last year’s 404,668. To reach that target, immigration officials will have to process a total of 552,095 applications, based on a projected 40 per cent refusal rate….

Source: With dipping study permit approval rates for international students, Canada may not meet its reduced target

Temporary residents in Canada rise to 2.8 million ahead of government restrictions

Highlights the challenges the government has in reversing growth that it encouraged and enabled:

The number of temporary residents in Canada swelled to 2.8 million in the first quarter, underscoring the challenge facing a federal government that is looking to restrict migration to the country.

Temporary residents – a group that includes international students, people here on work permits and asylum claimants – now comprise 6.8 per cent of the total population, up from 3.5 per cent two years ago, Statistics Canada reported on Wednesday.

Over all, the population grew by roughly 243,000 or 0.6 per cent during the first quarter, bringing the total to more than 41 million.

Canada is experiencing some of its fastest population growth in decades, fuelled almost entirely by immigration. The number of temporary residents has more than doubled over the past two years, raising concerns about Canada’s ability to welcome so many people, particularly in housing markets with low supply.

Source: Temporary residents in Canada rise to 2.8 million ahead of government restrictions

Chris Selley: TMU’s anti-Israel meltdown is a warning sign for Canada’s legal community

Cutting but all too accurate. Thanks agin to Robyn Doolittle and the Globe for the in-depth article:

….The “wording that questioned Israel’s legitimacy” was expressed in the letter as follows: “‘Israel’ is not a country.”

But … it is, though. That’s precisely what the signatories are angry about, isn’t it? This is the sort of non-argument you make through a megaphone out front of the student union when you’re, say, 19, not once you’ve invested tens of thousands of dollars in a legal education.

Some in the legal community worry about the free-speech implications of this metropolitan meltdown. On the bright side, these students have helpfully taken that concern out of play by indicating they’re happy to sign very sensitive documents that they haven’t read. There might be a place for them in future on Donald Trump’s legal team, but probably not at one of Canada’s top firms.

And hang on, what the hell is the point of a petition that isn’t public?

It’s as if these people thought they had enrolled in some kind of activist-lawyer fantasy camp, rather than an actual law school. Tough error to make, one would have thought, as it’s a bloody expensive fantasy camp: Upwards of $22,000 per annum; upwards of $25,000 if you’re from outside Ontario. How do you make it to law school not knowing actions have consequences?

Source: Chris Selley: TMU’s anti-Israel meltdown is a warning sign for Canada’s legal community